tv [untitled] May 5, 2013 4:00pm-4:31pm PDT
>> 2013, i am supervisor norman yee and i will be chairinging this meeting. to my left is supervisor malia cohen and supervisor london breed will be joining us shortly. the clerk today is linda wong. the committee would also like to acknowledge the staff of sfgtv, jesse larsen and nona melkonian who record each of our meetings and make the transcripts available to the public online. madam clerk, are there any announcements? >> yes, mr. chair. please make sure to silence all
cell phones and devices. completed speaker cards and copies of any documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will be appear on april 30th, 2013 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise indicated. >> thank you. can you please call item number 1? >> item number 1, hearing to consider appointing four members, terms ending march 1, 2016, to the in-home supportive services public authority. there are four seats and four applicants. >> thank you. we will be hearing from the candidates in the order they appear on the agenda. if patricia webb is here, please approach the microphone. good afternoon, supervisors. obviously i'm not patricia webb, but i think patricia sent you an e-mail which -- my name is patrick [speaker not understood] and i'm the
executive assistant at the ihss public authority and a staff liaison to the governing body. >> um-hm. patricia asked me if i would just read her e-mail if that's okay with you. it says, i am sorry not to be here with you today, but due to the current state of my disability -- >> sir, excuse me. i'll give you an opportunity to come up when i ask for public comments. me? >> yeah. okay. >> next person is elva hernandez. are you here? hi, elva. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is elva hernandez and i am an in-home support services worker [speaker not understood]. and i have served the board for almost six years and i have been a health care worker for 13 years. i feel that my experience is a
long time in the home support service provider and i would like to continue serving on the board. i hope that you will approve my reappointment to seat 4. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. any questions? >> yes. good morning or good afternoon to you. good afternoon. >> i would like to -- you've been on the board you said six years, correct? yes. >> can you tell me from the worker -- some of the things you accomplished in the last six years? the last six years? >> yes. well, i'm sorry. but when i came here, any time i get a lot of nerves. it's really hard for me. >> i understand. i'm that way, too. yes, just, you know, just
casually talk about -- six years is a long time. tell us about some of the things you accomplished, what you like about the role, why we should reappoint you. there's no right or wrong answer. just wanted an opportunity to get to know you a little bit better. yeah, because i'm like that because i can respond for the latino workers. >> so, what do you do specifically within the latino community? the latino community? >> um-hm. [speaker not understood]. i can't answer. >> okay. i'm sorry. >> that's okay. thank you. >> thank you. kelly dearman, are you here? tatiana kostanian.
can you hear me? >> yes. okay, good afternoon. my name is tatiana kostanian. i am in-home support services for the elderly and disabled. i'm also a [speaker not understood] disability councilmember. and if i may, i'm using my computer here to tell you why i would like this position. because i understand what the elderly and the disabled public needs and deserves. they deserve respect and the dignity of [speaker not understood] and justice just like the general public has. >> i have a follow-up question. it's good to see you. how long have you been on this commission, on this board? since maybe about four years ago.
>> what's your most proudest moment? i'm sorry? >> what in your four years that you've been in the body, what makes you most proud of the work that you've done? first, i had two mayors to ask me to choose -- to sit on the board. and i want to do it because i have since 1962 really worked with the elderly and the disabled and victims of trauma and a wide vary sources of communities, people, locally and globally who have come to really fight for their rights in [inaudible] possible. it's something that you cannot express what you've learned and the circumstances [speaker not understood] to make you understand why they need somebody to defend them.
it's just -- it's a wonderful way of opening up a vista and not sitting there in your own situation and saying, that's all i need to look at. i have to look and see what america needs. if i can't, if i can't help them, that's a deficit for all of us. >> thank you very much. >> okay. seeing no further questions, thank you. thank you. >> patrick, i'm sorry. i probably misheard you. you wanted to speak on behalf of patricia webb? and kelly. maybe i didn't identify myself. >> no, i wasn't -- i'm the executive assistant at the ihss public authority and i also serve as the staff liaison to the board. kelly dearman is the dhs, department of human services
commissioner on our board and has been for several years. she has run her own elder law -- elder issues law practice and worked for the s.f. city attorney's office representing child welfare workers. she's very articulate and knowledgeable about budget and finance matters and has made a valuable contribution to our board. and i just wanted to add she has the full support of her fellow board members and the public authority. trisha, you may have read her e-mail, but due to the current state of her disability, she's pretty much confined to her apartment. we teleconference her into all our meetings. she served on the san francisco public authority board also for several years. four of these are renominations, excuse me. and she's been board secretary for most of that time. she is also a wheelchair user and a younger consumer of ihss services.
she's also been a disability rights advocate of many years both at planning for elders and she continues to work with community living campaign. in addition to the long-term care coordinating council and the community alliance for disability advocates. and, again, as with kelly, she has the full support of her fellow board members and the public authority staff. thank you. >> thank you. at this point i'd like to acknowledge that supervisor london breed has joined the meeting. is there any public comments for this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [gavel] >> can we -- colleague, any thoughts? otherwise can we make a motion to waive the residency requirement for seat 4? i move the nomination of patricia webb.
>> actually, i just want to have a quick question. is there staff from in-homeservices public authority? >> he just spoke. >> come on up, patrick. i want to talk about the residency waiver requirement. generally the waiver requirement is requested because you cannot find someone in the city and county of san francisco to occupy this particular seat. so, you mean to tell me that in all of san francisco you're not able to find someone to occupy seat 4? >> [speaker not understood] is a representative on our board. and she was nominated by the public authority registry counselors and right around the time she was nominated, she moved and that was why we asked for the residency waiver which she received at that time. >> i see. so, she originally lived in san francisco? a yes. >> thank you for the clarification. thank you very much. ~ elva hernandez. >> supervisor breed. >> thank you.
i apologize for being late today. was elva here earlier to speak? >> um-hm. >> okay. i traditionally am not really a fan of waiving the residency requirement unless there are specific cases, like the department of public health had a case in which they needed a specific person and a certain discipline and it was a challenging role to fill. and in those particular cases, clearly i would be open to waiving the residency requirement. in this case, i'm not certain that i feel comfortable with doing that without more information. i think it's important to look at alternatives when these seats become available, the goal is to make sure they're residents of san francisco have the ability to serve. and there are many capable, i'm sure, san franciscans who have
not only the ability, but the desire to serve. ~ and, so, i'm not necessarily comfortable with waiving the residency requirement. i'm happy to move forward with the recommendations for the other seats, but i am not -- i'm happy to continue it until further information is gathered, but at this time i'm not prepared to waive the residency requirement for that seat. thank you. >> what i'd like to do is just split this into two parts. is there a motion to nominate patricia webb for seat 2, kelly dearman for seat 6, and tatiana kostanian for seat 9 in the
in-home supportive services public authority -- [speaker not understood]. >> i second that motion. a i have to have a first. >> oh, you were presenting the motion. i'll move it. >> okay. so moved, then. [gavel] >> so, in regards to seat number 4, is there a motion to waive the residency requirement for seat number 4? >> i'm happy to make a motion to continue seat number 4. >> is that the right procedure, to continue seat number 4 if there's no agreement that we would waive this seat, the residency requirement? >> deputy city attorney john givner. the board could consider a
motion to move the nominee to the full board with or without recommendation, or -- with the residency waiver. or could move to continue the item. so, supervisor breed has made a motion to continue. you can vote on that motion or you can -- and you can also make another motion. >> so, this motion that we made, is there a second? >> i have a question for supervisor breed. in continuing this motion, what are you looking to -- why are we continuing this? >> i want to make the recommendation that we continue it to look for alternatives for the seat in particular. i'd like there to be residents of san francisco submitted for seat 4. so, that's my goal in continuing this item. >> okay. so, this is a point of clarification for you, mr. city
attorney. sounds like we can either continue the item, but sounds like ms. hernandez will still be in play, or we can deny the recommendation and then ask for more -- for other suggestions for -- for other suggestions for residents that live in san francisco to fill seat 4. >> i think if you are not satisfied with this, with this candidate, the best course would probably just be to continue it. >> okay, thank you. >> and then you can consider her application in the future if no other residents -- >> okay. i will support supervisor breed's motion to continue seat number 4. >> okay. i'd like to say to elva, i'm going to be supporting this motion and i'm supporting -- and it has nothing to do with your qualifications as a person and so forth. but i understand the logic
behind why we're doing this. for people that live in san francisco to have this opportunity to serve. and, again, i don't want you to walk away thinking that it's a personal rejection. this is just a matter of how we pride ourselves in saying that we believe people in san francisco can do this work, okay. so, without any objection, i guess the motion passes. [gavel] >> thank you very much for coming today. madam clerk, can you call item number 2? >> yes, mr. chair. hearing to consider appointing one member, term ending april 27, 2015, to the soma community stabilization fund community advisory committee. there is one seat and two applicants. >> colleagues, i've been asked by the staff of the mayor's
office of housing who staff this committee for a continuance of this item. are there any nominees in this room? >> so moved. for the continuance. i know we have to take public comment and not necessarily entertain -- okay. >> yeah, i just want to make sure if there is somebody here, that they understand what's happening. i don't see anybody. is there any public comment on this item? okay. then public comment is closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, now you may make a motion to continue this. it's been moved. so moved. [gavel] >> all right. >> excuse me, supervisor. would you like to continue the item to the call of the chair? >> yes, i'm sorry. to the call of the chair. madam clerk, can you call item number 3?
>> item number 3, hearing to consider the quarterly reports of the shelter monitoring committee. >> [speaker not understood] the chair of the shelter monitoring committee, chief dennis, vice-chair, and is bernice here, casey here? >> [inaudible]. >> the staff of the shelter monitoring committee are here to provide a brief overview of the standard of care report. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for having us. my name is nick also kimura. [speaker not understood]. with me is keith dennis, the co-chair of the shelter alliance committee. again, i'd like to thank you for having us here to present the report. the committee was formed in 2004 through a broad coalition of community members, service providers and community advocates. and our main purview is to documents the conditions of the shelters with the intent to improve the health, safety, and treatment of the entire homeless community that we
serve in the shelters. currently there's actually all the new members except for one, hsa cindy ward, all of us are new members. we do not have staggered turns. that's one of the reasons we have it. but the main reason many former members did not apply to rejoin the committee is because a lot of them left with frustration about the process that the committee -- they felt that we were inept at enforcing the rules, enforcing the conditionses in the shelters. and specifically had to meet client concerns and show that they have full funding to ensure the standards of care are upheld because what we're doing is we're going in there and inspecting the standards of care, making sure they're complying. however, lots of times they don't receive the funding to do this. in the report there are just several things we'd like to highlight. approximately [speaker not understood] generate complaints were voted on for investigation. and one-fifth of the client
generated complaints were closed because they were satisfied with the response. only one-fifth were closed due to satisfaction. it has to do with this, over half 57% of the clients responded as no contact. meaning we didn't have any contact information for them. hopefully the new life line program, the new federal program will have some impact on that where people are allowed to have cell phones. the majority of complaints are men. 68 women complied, 76 men complained. excuse me. 14 families complained. and of these clients, 29 or 20% of them were seniors and 40% were disabled. >> mr. kimura, as you are referring to these stats, are they in this report? >> yes, they are. it's throughout the report. >> would you be able to point out the page? >> i don't have a copy. >> it's okay. it's just easier to follow. >> on the front page is a
summary of the recommendations on the front page. >> okay, thank you. >> um-hm. and just one of the main points i wanted to get across again, majority of the complaints are regarding staff treatment or the way staff is interacting with clients. the second area is regarding facility and access issue. as you may know, there is worker currently between [speaker not understood] woulder working to improve access into the shelters. and then the facility -- part of this is with the staff treatment and the facility, the conditions is again with the standards of care and a lack of training that the staff receives. part of that is due to a perceived turn over of the staff that works at the shelters. however, the training is still, in my opinion, at a minimum of what they can be taught. also, just so you know, for instance, a recent complaint -- a recent response from the shelter said they couldn't comply with one of the
standards of care because they didn't have the funding to do so. this is a fairly common occurrence, at least for conditions, things that they have to supply to clients. we're asking them to enforce these or to apply these standards of carey equally throughout all the clients diderction -- for all their clients. however, we're not providing them with the proper resources to do so. so, that is part of the frustration that past members had felt. >> i have a question. >> sure. >> this is the first time i've seen this document. so, i'm going to make an assumption that the details are inside the document as the types of complaints when [speaker not understood] resources. they're unable to eliminate whatever is the driving force of the complaint is. is that detailed into this report? >> there is going to be -- it's not going to be the shelter responses, like each one, you're not going to get a
response for each shelter in that because there's hundreds of them. what you're going to see is basically the types of complaints that are made, like how the shelter responded, if the client was satisfied with that response. >> as a matter of record, could you give one or two examples of the type of complaints that you review or that this report is summarizing? >> so, the majority is regarding staff treatment. the standard of care is they have to be treated equally, fairly, or with respect. a lot of clients will come -- clearly a majority of them will come saying that they in some way may have felt disrespected or the staff is less than expected. another one, like not having the proper supplies, not having enough soap in the bathroom, enough toilet paper, enough towels, enough sheets for them, sufficient enough sheets for them to stay warm, stuff like that. >> thank you. >> so, moving on to recommendations. what is a very big recommendation i think we can get from this report is that the staffing capacity needs to
be increased or at least filled in. currently there is one staff bernice here. there's spots for two. the other one has been vacant for i believe five months? for five months. so, in that -- the result of that is that we had an average response time of 29 days of responding to client's complaints which is almost three times the amount allotted. and, so, in order to meet the legislative time period and complete all investigations, the staffing capacity really needs to be filled two full-time staff members. bernice does a great job, but she's not bilingual. the other former staff member was bilingual very important for the [speaker not understood] considering many undocumented people live in the shelters. we need to identify what kind of client market. better data essentially to collect throughout the year to see what types of services are
needed, what types of services are succeeding, how the shelter system is working, how conditions can be addressed. for example, the committee failed to collect data on disability status. this data would be good to have for future use at least to see who is coming to us in the future. another -- along with that, actually, we're going -- we do the turn away counts which is basically when people seeking beds, how many of them are turned away. the city serves an estimated 6,000 homeless people in the city, homeless individuals and there's 11 34 shelter beds. obviously there is going to be turn aways regardless of how many people seek it unless there were less than 1 134 people. we're going to improve data collection. also we need help with legislation changes. we're going to try and reexamine the standards of care
and update them on thing that are unmodern. wool try and keep them in mind with the progression of time. also as i said, all the committee members terms expire at once. so, we have a complete new committee, complete new committee members. so, we're going to try and get staggered terms. also we're going to try and look at a new enforcement system. we have a retreat coming up. what i mean by enforcement system is if the shelter is constantly not in compliance, technically they can be find by the department of public health. however, that is contradictory. really anything we're trying to get done. we're going to look at a new enforcement system. perhaps points, we're not really sure, but that's what we're going to look at. these require legislative changes which is why i'm letting you guys know. lastly, i'd like to stay say the standards of care are unfunded mandate which is why services aren't being provided. so, if there was some way we could get some funding for the
standard of care because -- i mean, the hypocracy is inherent where we're acquiring these standards without providing the necessary resources for them to accomplish them. so, if you have any questions, that's all i have to present. >> i have a question. can you tell me what your funding source is? >> our funding source [speaker not understood]. >> good afternoon, supervisors. the shelter monitoring committee as a committee did youant have any funding. they receive staffing from the department of public health of two positions. the human services agency of the of the 15 shelters the city takes complaints from [speaker not understood]. the city has 14 of those contracts. the department of public health has one of the contracts. so, the service providers receive funding from the city and county as well as other sources, but those are the agencies that have the contract.
the shelter monitoring committee is a advisory body created by the board of supervisors to provide the board of supervisors and the mayor's office information about conditions in the shelters. >> okay. so, let me ask the question to you and the city attorney might have to opine on this. in your capacity as an advisory body, does that preclude you as an entity to fund raise on your own behalf? >> to fund raise for our -- to build the capacity of the committee or the site? >> to build the capacity within the committee. >> what has happened in the past historically when the plan of care happened, we created in 2008, the committee will -- the then rules committee in creating legislation that required an additional staff person, due to retirement, that staff person has now left and as i'm sure you're all aware, the budget process is no hiring. there's been a delay for that one position.
>> was that one position a fund-raiser, director? >> one was to deal with clients who walked in and took complaints. and with more of the client interface piece, my position is a policy analyst. so, now i'm doing multiple jobs and none of them very well. >> i want to go back to -- my original question is about additional funding sources that you had a whole list of recommendations. of course it always says you need more money. my question is are you capable to help yourself to find more money, more resources? i don't know if that's legally how you're set up to receive money. nonprofits, 501(c) (3). >> we're part of the government, so, we don't -- i mean, i'll foredid the city attorney, but we wouldn't necessarily do that. we do try to work to identify non-county sources like training are provided for free
and things like that. but within budgetary, we make budget recommendations to the board of supervisors and the mayor's office on why improving capacity would be better for the county in the long run. but we don't fund raise or have a budget of our own. >> okay, thank you. you answered my question. thank you very much. >> and then supervisor cohen, i wanted to maybe add a little bit more to your comment when you asked for specific complaints and results at the shelter. you'll find that in the appendix. and i apologize, this report was e-mailed to all of your staff. i didn't necessarily e-mail it to you. next time i'll make sure the supervisors get it. the appendix gives you a breakdown of all of the shelters and then there's some narrative about the complaint process and the investigation process, as well as, you know, some of the shelters don't receive client complaints. and that's in here as well.